zzrhardy:"First of all, you don't ask the questions around here. I do. Second, we don't want guys like you in this town, drifters. Third, you wouldn't like it here anyway. Its a pretty boring town. I get paid to keep it that way."

/not that obscure

I was going to use a photo of this in my Boobies, but thought it'd be too obvious. Now, if her neighborhood gets blown to bits and she finds herself on the other end of a large knife, I'll just rue this day.

imprimere:Cyclometh:I had to get a little Belkin bluetooth keyboard thingy. It's part of the cover, works a treat.

Totally off topic, but when you start adding peripherals like the keyboard, headphones, etc., aren't you just kinda building a laptop? I've never really understood the tablet craze.

I don't think so. Firstly, it's not exactly a large form factor. Secondly, if you have an iPad the first thing you'll get for it is a cover. The cover I have has a keyboard in it that's about 1/8" thick. You literally would not know it was there until I fold it out. And lastly, I only use it when I really need a keyboard; 99% of the time I use the iPad as a pure tablet. It runs twice as long as any laptop, doesn't need any bulky accessories with it, I can carry it in one hand and it works anywhere there's celluar service.

*shrug* To each their own. I love the thing, personally. So much easier/smaller/lighter/simpler than a laptop.

Cyclometh:imprimere: Cyclometh:I had to get a little Belkin bluetooth keyboard thingy. It's part of the cover, works a treat.

Totally off topic, but when you start adding peripherals like the keyboard, headphones, etc., aren't you just kinda building a laptop? I've never really understood the tablet craze.

I don't think so. Firstly, it's not exactly a large form factor. Secondly, if you have an iPad the first thing you'll get for it is a cover. The cover I have has a keyboard in it that's about 1/8" thick. You literally would not know it was there until I fold it out. And lastly, I only use it when I really need a keyboard; 99% of the time I use the iPad as a pure tablet. It runs twice as long as any laptop, doesn't need any bulky accessories with it, I can carry it in one hand and it works anywhere there's celluar service.

*shrug* To each their own. I love the thing, personally. So much easier/smaller/lighter/simpler than a laptop.

I believe if she owns less than 5 rental units she does not have to follow the fair housing act.The guy likely doesn't deserve the kind of bullshiat she's pulling but she may not be doing anything illegal?Property freedoms. Thank a vet.

IamAwake:imprimere: Would you say the same if it was an all white neighborhood and she was just, you know, letting a brother know that he really isn't welcome in their purebread community?

I wasn't aware that US Military was a protected minority class...

Never said it was, though I did equate them for the reason that it was mentioned that there is a law precluding housing discrimination against the military. In that regard, they should be treated alike.

here to help:Cyclometh: Discrimination is wrong, it is anti-American and principled individuals should never turn a blind eye to it. Whether a small act or a gross one, it is wrong and should not be tolerated in this country.

Sure, but this man was being judged by his actions and his character. Not his race, gender or sexual orientation.

Well, should we then be allowed to discriminate against religions? Those are, after all, a choice. And while i don't make the argument here, others have made the argument that sexual orientation is a choice.

While we're at it, let's allow people to reject people from renting from them for any of these choice-based reasons:

Cyclometh:This is an interesting argument but doesn't really pass the sniff test. First, the government is the people. Second, a strong military is a requirement for the United States to exist. It does not need to be the massive system it is now, but that is not the fault of the individual soldier.

Without a strong military, the United States would not exist. The ACLU (and I'm a member) does a huge amount to protect rights, but without a military and the people in it, there would be no rights to protect.

Soldiers are instruments of foreign policy. They are, essentially, tools to be used in the promulgation of American interests. They volunteer to be used as a tool, giving up much of their self-determination and many of the rights the rest of us take for granted.

They do this not because they are foolish, ignorant or misguided. They do it because someone has to. Without them, we would have no country. You can argue that as tools they are quite frequently misused by their wielder- witness the idiocy of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars- but you do not blame the tool when it causes damage, you blame the holder of the tool...

From a purely objective point of view, this is really begging the question, isn't it?

INTERTRON:From a purely objective point of view, this is really begging the question, isn't it?

Potentially (and props for properly using the phrase "begging the question", by the way), but I assumed the reasoning behind that statement would be stipulated by anyone likely to read it here. But to clarify, the world we live in is a violent one and there are nations, people and groups that would use violence against the United States to its complete destruction and/or subjugation were it not for the presence of a strong military.

I'm not sure there's a reasonable argument to be made to the contrary on that point. My issues with the military are not its existence, but its size and power, which are far greater than we need to protect ourselves and advance our interests internationally. It does create a temptation to treat every problem as the proverbial nail.

I think she SHOULD be able to rent to whomever she likes. But there appear to be laws in place preventing that. Repeal the anti-discrimination laws. No one should be forced to enter a contract.

Question for the liberals suddenly concerned about the free market: what if the applicant was a gay soldier? Would you still be arguing in favor of conscience?

Question for the conservatives suddenly concerned about discrimination: what if the applicant was Jane Fonda, or (for the pro-life folks) a doctor at an abortion clinic? Would you still be arguing in favor of a universal protected class?

Cyclometh:here to help: Cyclometh: Discrimination is wrong, it is anti-American and principled individuals should never turn a blind eye to it. Whether a small act or a gross one, it is wrong and should not be tolerated in this country.

Sure, but this man was being judged by his actions and his character. Not his race, gender or sexual orientation.

Well, should we then be allowed to discriminate against religions? Those are, after all, a choice. And while i don't make the argument here, others have made the argument that sexual orientation is a choice.

While we're at it, let's allow people to reject people from renting from them for any of these choice-based reasons:

I'm sure we can all come up with more if we work at it, but I'm pretty sure my point is made. Bigotry is not restricted to intrinsic properties. It can be brought to bear against anything.

I think if it's a private residence, which this seems to be, then that's up to the landlord. They have to live there too. She also has other tenants to think of as well and from the sounds of it his presence would have caused some problems.

Besides... she didn't REFUSE to rent to him. She just flapped her gums like a dummy when she shouldn't have said anything.

I KNOW I've been turned down for places because I look a little wacky but a) those landlords knew better than to get mouthy about it and b) I accept that as a fact of life.

You'd figure someone who's seen war would have a basic grasp on how things work in the real world. But then again... maybe not.

lukehasnoname:phrawgh: She's fortunate to live in a country where others will fight to protect her right to be a pacifist.

I'm fortunate I live in a country where I don't have to serve to kill brown people because oil execs think it's profitable.

Yes you are... and you can complain from your armchair. Now, quit voteing in people who do things your not happy with. You live in a place where you can do that as well. You're fortunate for that too. Over half the human population can't do that one.

Cyclometh:My issues with the military are not its existence, but its size and power, which are far greater than we need to protect ourselves and advance our interests internationally. It does create a temptation to treat every problem as the proverbial nail.

It could be argued that because it's still defied with force it's not large enough. It could be argued that because military targets can escape capture or termination for very large periods of time that it's not powerful enough. I'm not making that argument, but I will say that it may be difficult to qualify or quantify a nation's military needs.

TFA said she had 30 applications. The easiest (read: avoid lawsuits) way to decide is to accept the first application that passes the credit check and has adequate financial means to pay the rent. That's the only factor you can use when deciding if a tenant is suitable. It's not like hiring for a job where you go through each application and choose the applicant you like the most.

The complication in this case is the guy didn't actually put in an application. However, her voicemail documents that she was discouraging him from applying at all, so maybe there's still a decent case there.

Cyclometh:here to help: Cyclometh: Discrimination is wrong, it is anti-American and principled individuals should never turn a blind eye to it. Whether a small act or a gross one, it is wrong and should not be tolerated in this country.

Sure, but this man was being judged by his actions and his character. Not his race, gender or sexual orientation.

Well, should we then be allowed to discriminate against religions? Those are, after all, a choice. And while i don't make the argument here, others have made the argument that sexual orientation is a choice.

While we're at it, let's allow people to reject people from renting from them for any of these choice-based reasons:

I'm sure we can all come up with more if we work at it, but I'm pretty sure my point is made. Bigotry is not restricted to intrinsic properties. It can be brought to bear against anything.

I'm fairly certain that out of three dozen random Farkers asked you would end up with three dozen conflicting lists. Mine, for example, includes only half of yours and others that you would probably find appalling.

So, ultimately, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to discriminate? Certainly you do not believe "never".

imprimere:IamAwake: I'm a vet. My brother was stationed at GITMO. I buy at least 1 beer for any active serviceperson I see in a bar. I donate money. Blah etc.

but...

I don't think the landlady should be forced to bring people in that disagree with her ideals. She's trying to set up a particular vibe there, and hey - ok, why not. Where's the line between that and a large apartment building, etc? Dunno - but if it's just a small building where everyone knows everyone, and she wants everyone to like everyone, then...meh. MEH. meh.

I actually think it looks worse for him to sue her over it, than it does for her to have done it. Meh.

Would you say the same if it was an all white neighborhood and she was just, you know, letting a brother know that he really isn't welcome in their purebread community?

This post is making the incorrect assumption that black people had exactly as much choice in being born black, as veterans who volunteered for service had in their choice to enlist.Similar posts throughout this thread attempt to draw parallels between the choice to enlist and the choice to be born homosexual, or the choice to be born female, both of which are false analogies.

Consider instead, somebody who chose to live in the moment, and subsequently had a high revolving debt load. Or, somebody who chose to spend their life working for low pay at a nonprofit, and subsequently had a below-average income. Or, somebody who performs freelance work, and subsequently has a large number of former employers, and an unreliable or inconsistent income. All three of these people stand to be declined housing based on screening mechanisms that are fairly common among apartment complexes. Should they be protected from discrimination based on their poor credit or unreliable or low income? Surely somebody who devotes their life to a charity is at least as noble as somebody who devoted a portion of their life to the military.

Cyclometh:INTERTRON: From a purely objective point of view, this is really begging the question, isn't it?

Potentially (and props for properly using the phrase "begging the question", by the way), but I assumed the reasoning behind that statement would be stipulated by anyone likely to read it here. But to clarify, the world we live in is a violent one and there are nations, people and groups that would use violence against the United States to its complete destruction and/or subjugation were it not for the presence of a strong military.

I'm not sure there's a reasonable argument to be made to the contrary on that point. My issues with the military are not its existence, but its size and power, which are far greater than we need to protect ourselves and advance our interests internationally. It does create a temptation to treat every problem as the proverbial nail.

I agree an extremely powerful military is necessary. The application of that power is most of the issue with me.That goes back to the decisions of the people the citizens, myself included, have voted in.Personal responsibility being non-existant in the US, it's no wonder people just blame others and point fingers anymore.

blahpers:I ask the same thing of veterans, if we know each other well enough to avoid offending each other with such a discussion. I usually get one of three answers: "to serve my country", "to pay for college", or "because I was young and stupid". Sometimes a combination thereof. Nobody ever comes out and says "because I like shooting people and this way it's legal and I get paid for it", but such people exist too, and the military employs such people by design. None of these answers except the fourth one strikes me as rational in recent context. I'm glad that there are people irrational enough to join the military anyway, if only because we do require a standing military for defense purposes, but on an individual basis it strikes me as either foolish or insane.

In some cases, they'll answer "to pay for college" or "because I was young & stupid" if they get the feeling that you're not very supportive of military service. Just saying, it might not be their TRUE reason for enlisting - just a more socially acceptable answer.

And I want to thank you for being rational enough to at least acknowledge the bolded - it seems like a lot of Farkers are just not getting that part of it.

As for the answer, "to serve my country," this is actually a much more reasonable response than it seems like on its surface if you understand the culture from which it comes. I can almost bet money on the fact that someone who says that comes from either the Deep South (or Texas!) or from a military background (lots of family members in the military). It's hard for someone who was raised by pacifist hippies in California to understand the upbringing that would cause a person to choose enlistment as a means of national service, or for someone to want to "serve their country" in any event. But where I come from, national service in some form is highly encouraged as an alternative to college or to entering the workforce. In some families and subcultures, it's EXPECTED that young men will enlist in the military and at LEAST do their initial four-year "stint" unless they've got some sort of medical issue or are otherwise disqualified. The only real exceptions to that are boys who are college-bound (meaning, they have both the grades and the financial backing AND the ambition to do something that requires college, usually something like medicine, engineering, science, etc.), and boys who have a legitimate family-based reason not to leave home (sick parents, dependent children, etc.). And for many/most of these young men, enlistment is really the only viable way to "serve your country". Do you know how hard it is to get into the Peace Corps these days?

biatch is too nice, shes a coont and I hope she realizes what kind of shiat storm shes unleashed on herself, lets hope someone offers he current tenants rooms for half the price they are paying now and leaves her with no income.

blahpers:whitecorporatemaleoppressor: Lorelle: So where are the conservatives defending this woman for running her business as she sees fit??

I think she SHOULD be able to rent to whomever she likes. But there appear to be laws in place preventing that. Repeal the anti-discrimination laws. No one should be forced to enter a contract.

Question for the liberals suddenly concerned about the free market: what if the applicant was a gay soldier? Would you still be arguing in favor of conscience?

Question for the conservatives suddenly concerned about discrimination: what if the applicant was Jane Fonda, or (for the pro-life folks) a doctor at an abortion clinic? Would you still be arguing in favor of a universal protected class?

I'm not concerned about discrimination. People should be allowed to discriminate for any reason. Conservatives will tend to like stories like this because liberal apologists end up arguing in favor of discrimination, seemingly oblivious to the hypocrisy.

morgantx:I'm not arguing whether the recent wars have been justified. But if America suddenly disbanded our military TOMORROW, what do you think would happen?

As for the bolded? China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba. Now none of those countries are likely to attempt an invasion NOW, but if we suddenly decided to mothball all of our military equipment and laid off everyone who's ever served in uniform, any of those nations (and probably more than a few others) would be scrambling to see who could get here first.

The fact that you think any of that is true is evidence that you really don't have much knowledge on the size of the planet, the abilities of foreign armed forces, the economic base needed to wage an invasion against a first world country, the natural defensibility of the United States, or the foreign policy goals of the world's major powers.

China: They're not going to try to invade us, even if we left the doors wide open. We're they're number one trading partner, and they know it. The incredible grown their economy has shown in the last several decades grinds to a halt if they try to invade. Add on top of that that they would have to spend a minimum of several years diverting their economy away from increasing the standard of living in china to instead produce the MASSIVE amount of war materials they would need both to transport and supply an army half way around the world, and to give that army the tremendous munitions it would need to pacify even a small portion of the US populous. And this is all assuming that the US, upon seeing China spending years gearing up for an invasion wouldn't organize a few militia units, or prep the populous on insurgent tactics and thus render the entire endeavor entirely untenable for China, no matter how much they prepared.

Iran: The size and strength of their economy, the size of the populous, and the sophistication of their military are not even anywhere close to what would be needed to even attempt an invasion of the US, must less succeed at it. Perhaps if they adopted strong free market principals, and spent a century allowing their populous to grow, all the while embracing science and international trade, then they might be in a position to at least attempt an invasion, but really, if they did all that, why would they even bother with such a military adventure?

North Korea: They can scarcely manage to feed their own populous. A minor land invasion of even their immediate neighbors would likely cripple their virtually non-existent economy while at the same time shattering the regime. Not to mention the massive cultural disturbance they would suffer once their armies left the censorship confines of DPRK and got exposed to the outside world.

Cuba: Again, the size and strength of the economy, the size of the populous, and the sophistication of their military are not even enough to launch of invasion of a portion of Florida, much less the United States. The population of Cuba is 11 million. The population of Florida is 19 million. Even if every single able bodied Cuban join in on the invasion, and somehow half of them didn't just defect right away, an insurgency of Floridians alone would be able to push them back into the sea.

---

The simple truth is that the US has the 3rd largest population on the planet, and that populous is the most heavily armed one to boot. That population is also spread over massive areas, and has access to the world's most sophisticated and decentralized transportation system. There are a mind boggling number of small machine shops, chemical depots, underground facilities, and general supply stores scattered across virtually every part of the country. On top of that there are numerous vast stretches that could support small militia forces off the land alone. The populous is also highly educated, has myriad of means for passing information amoungst itself, and has ready access to technological know-how. Taken all together, it means that an invasion and occupation of the United States, even if the only resistance was the populous itself, would likely be the most expensive, most logistically complex, and most time consuming military operation in history. Heck, if a twin of the United States, with out current military and economy, tried to invade a duplicate military-less United States, it would also likely fail. Subduing a smart, massive, highly armed, highly mobile, highly motivated, and highly supplied population is one of the most difficult tasks any military can undertake. It is simply not a credible threat the US has had to worry about since around the time of the War of 1812. To think differently is to ignore history and entertain fantasy.

If she owns the building, I see no reason why she should be forced to rent an apartment to anyone if she doesn't want to, regardless of the reason why.

Also FTA

"For her to do that to me, it was like a spit in the face," Morgan said. "For what we have gone through overseas, to come home to our country and have people ... discriminate against us. ... It made me extremely insecure about being a soldier."

Good. Don't know why everyone is hating on the woman because she does not support a corrupt, oppressive, and murderous military-industrial complex.

Barbecue Bob:Cyclometh: INTERTRON: From a purely objective point of view, this is really begging the question, isn't it?

Potentially (and props for properly using the phrase "begging the question", by the way), but I assumed the reasoning behind that statement would be stipulated by anyone likely to read it here. But to clarify, the world we live in is a violent one and there are nations, people and groups that would use violence against the United States to its complete destruction and/or subjugation were it not for the presence of a strong military.

I'm not sure there's a reasonable argument to be made to the contrary on that point. My issues with the military are not its existence, but its size and power, which are far greater than we need to protect ourselves and advance our interests internationally. It does create a temptation to treat every problem as the proverbial nail.

I agree an extremely powerful military is necessary. The application of that power is most of the issue with me.That goes back to the decisions of the people the citizens, myself included, have voted in.Personal responsibility being non-existant in the US, it's no wonder people just blame others and point fingers anymore.

What you are asking for is more than personal responsibility. Personal responsibility ends at the person. There is no way, other than by my vote and my words, that I could have affected our foreign policy. I voted, and I provided my words. They were insufficient. I refuse to be held "personally responsible" for the actions of those who were elected in spite of my voice and my vote by those who knew the criminal nature of the candidate in question and chose them anyway. Exactly what would you expect of me? Armed insurrection? And what of the personal responsibility of the soldier? They don't get a free pass on moral or ethical obligations just because they volunteered for military service. They are ultimately responsible for their own actions.

INTERTRON:imprimere: IamAwake: I'm a vet. My brother was stationed at GITMO. I buy at least 1 beer for any active serviceperson I see in a bar. I donate money. Blah etc.

but...

I don't think the landlady should be forced to bring people in that disagree with her ideals. She's trying to set up a particular vibe there, and hey - ok, why not. Where's the line between that and a large apartment building, etc? Dunno - but if it's just a small building where everyone knows everyone, and she wants everyone to like everyone, then...meh. MEH. meh.

I actually think it looks worse for him to sue her over it, than it does for her to have done it. Meh.

Would you say the same if it was an all white neighborhood and she was just, you know, letting a brother know that he really isn't welcome in their purebread community?

This post is making the incorrect assumption that black people had exactly as much choice in being born black, as veterans who volunteered for service had in their choice to enlist.Similar posts throughout this thread attempt to draw parallels between the choice to enlist and the choice to be born homosexual, or the choice to be born female, both of which are false analogies.

Consider instead, somebody who chose to live in the moment, and subsequently had a high revolving debt load. Or, somebody who chose to spend their life working for low pay at a nonprofit, and subsequently had a below-average income. Or, somebody who performs freelance work, and subsequently has a large number of former employers, and an unreliable or inconsistent income. All three of these people stand to be declined housing based on screening mechanisms that are fairly common among apartment complexes. Should they be protected from discrimination based on their poor credit or unreliable or low income? Surely somebody who devotes their life to a charity is at least as noble as somebody who devoted a portion of their life to the military.

This question was posed to ther person stating their opinion about her not being forced to rent to someone who doesn't share her ideals. It was not a question of legality, but one of beliefs.

NetOwl:jaylectricity: "For her to do that to me, it was like a spit in the face," Morgan said. "For what we have gone through overseas, to come home to our country and have people ... discriminate against us. ... It made me extremely insecure about being a soldier."

You chose to go through that, and you were probably lied to about why you were there. You're not a protected class. Protected classes are protected because they have no choice to be who they are.

She looks at you as one of those people that would be OK with killing another human for money.

Soldiers tend to be that, yes.

An apartment complex is one thing, but I would never consider renting out a room in my house to a soldier or to anyone else who has killed someone. Even if the soldiers didn't start the war, they still (all of them!) said that they'd be just peachy wih getting paid to shoot people.

blahpers:Cyclometh: here to help: Cyclometh: Discrimination is wrong, it is anti-American and principled individuals should never turn a blind eye to it. Whether a small act or a gross one, it is wrong and should not be tolerated in this country.

Sure, but this man was being judged by his actions and his character. Not his race, gender or sexual orientation.

Well, should we then be allowed to discriminate against religions? Those are, after all, a choice. And while i don't make the argument here, others have made the argument that sexual orientation is a choice.

While we're at it, let's allow people to reject people from renting from them for any of these choice-based reasons:

I'm sure we can all come up with more if we work at it, but I'm pretty sure my point is made. Bigotry is not restricted to intrinsic properties. It can be brought to bear against anything.

I'm fairly certain that out of three dozen random Farkers asked you would end up with three dozen conflicting lists. Mine, for example, includes only half of yours and others that you would probably find appalling.

So, ultimately, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to discriminate? Certainly you do not believe "never".

Well, we've got this group of people we call "Congress", which is made up of people we elect to make these kinds of rules. They don't satisfy everyone, but we can change them if we need to and it seems to work out pretty well, on balance. I wouldn't expect to be able to enshrine my list in law by fiat, but our society has made a determination that some classes of people deserve to be in a protected status because they are the targets of discriminatory practices that are harmful to society. Where the line lives... I'm not sure I can effectively answer that, but I'm confident that the consensus we have reached as a nation, while not perfect, does at least approxmate the most optimal position for it.

imprimere:This question was posed to ther person stating their opinion about her not being forced to rent to someone who doesn't share her ideals. It was not a question of legality, but one of beliefs.

Would you please rank the following stated opinions in order of "least offensive to you" to "most offensive to you"? If you think two or more of them are equally offensive to you, then you can say that instead:

A. "I disagree with your choice to volunteer in the armed forces, so we probably won't get along."B. "I disagree with your choice to be black, so we probably won't get along."C. "I disagree with your choice to volunteer in the International Committee of the Red Cross, so we probably won't get along."

DrPainMD:Mensan: Thank a veteran of the War of 1812 (that's the last time our national sovereignty was challenged) for protecting your right to be a jerk.Thank a police officer for protecting your dickish self from other scumbags breaking your neck or turning you into a brain-dead cripple.

Yeah! I mean, we ONLY invaded Afghanistan for their oil. It's not like a group of men were trained there, sent over here, and crashed planes into buildings. It's only about the oil!

morgantx:blahpers: I ask the same thing of veterans, if we know each other well enough to avoid offending each other with such a discussion. I usually get one of three answers: "to serve my country", "to pay for college", or "because I was young and stupid". Sometimes a combination thereof. Nobody ever comes out and says "because I like shooting people and this way it's legal and I get paid for it", but such people exist too, and the military employs such people by design. None of these answers except the fourth one strikes me as rational in recent context. I'm glad that there are people irrational enough to join the military anyway, if only because we do require a standing military for defense purposes, but on an individual basis it strikes me as either foolish or insane.

In some cases, they'll answer "to pay for college" or "because I was young & stupid" if they get the feeling that you're not very supportive of military service. Just saying, it might not be their TRUE reason for enlisting - just a more socially acceptable answer.

And I want to thank you for being rational enough to at least acknowledge the bolded - it seems like a lot of Farkers are just not getting that part of it.

As for the answer, "to serve my country," this is actually a much more reasonable response than it seems like on its surface if you understand the culture from which it comes. I can almost bet money on the fact that someone who says that comes from either the Deep South (or Texas!) or from a military background (lots of family members in the military). It's hard for someone who was raised by pacifist hippies in California to understand the upbringing that would cause a person to choose enlistment as a means of national service, or for someone to want to "serve their country" in any event. But where I come from, national service in some form is highly encouraged as an alternative to college or to entering the workforce. In some families and subcultures, it's EXPECTED that young men will enli ...

For what it's worth, my parents were hippies in California (and Texas, and Washington), but they instilled in me and my brothers an abiding respect for this country and our society. Despite what you might think or have been told, most "hippies" were quite aware of their life being enabled by sacrifices made by others. What they hoped for in most cases was that enough sacrifice had been made to enable a better culture with fewer violent sacrifices necessary.

They were wrong in some ways, but that doesn't mean they were wrong to believe in the idea. Decades later it's far too easy to make the connection you're making. Respect for and service to ones' country didn't only come from one element of American culture. Many of the "hippies" believed as fervently that they were in service to a better nation as much as a family with a multi-generational history of military service. And a lot of "hippies" were vets themselves, or had a lot of respect for soldiers. We've heard so many stories about Vietnam vets being spit on (which were never true) that it's part of the narrative that the beatniks hated the vets.

The truth was far more complex. I'd hate to see the great discussions we're having today boiled down to such simple and incorrect broad strokes 40 or 50 years from now.

And for what it's worth, two of their three kids ended up in the military during a war, so... anecdotes may not be the singular form of data, but I can also say I know I'm not alone in being a combat vet who is a child of hippies that fully supports their vision.

whitecorporatemaleoppressor:blahpers: whitecorporatemaleoppressor: Lorelle: So where are the conservatives defending this woman for running her business as she sees fit??

I think she SHOULD be able to rent to whomever she likes. But there appear to be laws in place preventing that. Repeal the anti-discrimination laws. No one should be forced to enter a contract.

Question for the liberals suddenly concerned about the free market: what if the applicant was a gay soldier? Would you still be arguing in favor of conscience?

Question for the conservatives suddenly concerned about discrimination: what if the applicant was Jane Fonda, or (for the pro-life folks) a doctor at an abortion clinic? Would you still be arguing in favor of a universal protected class?

I'm not concerned about discrimination. People should be allowed to discriminate for any reason. Conservatives will tend to like stories like this because liberal apologists end up arguing in favor of discrimination, seemingly oblivious to the hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy inherent in your false equivalency. Few sane people will intentionally argue against discrimination on any basis whatsoever. There are fundamental differences between sexual orientation and military status, not least of which is the element of choice, but also including the actual effects the status necessarily has on others. You don't get to choose whether to be homosexual, and even if you could, being homosexual has no inherent effect on anybody else, nor any moral or ethical ramifications that hold any water in the current context. Such a comparison is not only obtuse, it is lazy and difficult to take seriously.

INTERTRON:imprimere: This question was posed to ther person stating their opinion about her not being forced to rent to someone who doesn't share her ideals. It was not a question of legality, but one of beliefs.

Would you please rank the following stated opinions in order of "least offensive to you" to "most offensive to you"? If you think two or more of them are equally offensive to you, then you can say that instead:

A. "I disagree with your choice to volunteer in the armed forces, so we probably won't get along."B. "I disagree with your choice to be black, so we probably won't get along."C. "I disagree with your choice to volunteer in the International Committee of the Red Cross, so we probably won't get along."

OK, so race and sex is out since it's not a choice, but religion, occupation, sexual preference, and altered sex would be OK with you?

The gist of my question was which bigotry was acceptable to that person.

Don't want to rent to someone for a reason that is against the law? Simple "I already have several people interested in this apartment that were here before you, I'll give you a call back if they drop out", "I'm trying out a new tenant on a month lease, give me a call then if you haven't found a place and I'll let you know if they worked out", etc.

blahpers:I'm fairly certain that out of three dozen random Farkers asked you would end up with three dozen conflicting lists. Mine, for example, includes only half of yours and others that you would probably find appalling.

So, ultimately, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to discriminate? Certainly you do not believe "never".

Yeah, yeah, I know. This is "tl;dr". I put in headings. Read at your own risk. Don't biatch.

It is okay to discriminate when there is a legitimate reason to do so. In the case of a landlord selecting an applicant:

Ability to Pay Rent*Employment: Is this person employed in a job where their income is secure (or reasonably secure)? For example, someone who works as a construction laborer is not securely employed and is likely to face long periods of seasonal unemployment.*Income: Is the person's income enough to pay the rent without causing financial hardship in other areas? Most landlords I know use a 3x or 3.5x formula for that, depending on the cost of living in the area. (In other words, if the rent is $1,000, they insist that you earn $3,000 or $3,500 a month.)*Credit History: I want to look at one thing regarding the ability to pay rent: How much debt is this person currently carrying? In other words, if they earn $3,500 a month (on my $1,000 rental home, as an example), but they have a $600 car payment and $400 a month in credit card debt, I'm not going to rent to them. They're overextended.Worthiness as a Tenant*Rental History: I want to see if they've had any evictions or any collections related to a previous rental. I will also call at least one or two references that they've listed from previous landlords to determine if they've had problems. Prior problems wouldn't automatically disqualify them, but I'd want to know what happened and why they had problems in the past. (For example, maybe the bad landlord reference was from their old college apartment that they shared with three other guys and they've had great rental history ever since.)*Stability: Looking at their credit history, do they tend to be relatively stable? Do they live in the same place for awhile? Having a vacant rental property can be pricey, and finding a new tenant can be costly and a PITA. If their credit/employment history shows that they tend to be more nomadic, I'll pass them up in favor of someone with more stability.*Sex Offenders: Here's how I (if I were a landlord) would look at the issue of criminal background. First off, if they're a registered sex offender and my property is in an area that they cannot LEGALLY live in (too close to a school, etc.), I have to inform them of that fact. If their PO finds out they're living there, they'll have to break the lease and I'll be looking for a new tenant again. Other sex offenses would depend on the neighborhood; if it's a neighborhood where there aren't a lot of kids around, then I wouldn't worry quite so much, especially if the offense was committed some time ago. But if you're a registered sex offender and a bunch of uptight moms in the neighborhood start to have problems with it, they may try to "run you out" of the neighborhood, which would leave my rental home vacant.*Other criminal offenses would depend on the property, the neighborhood, and how I think it would affect the neighbors. A non-violent burglary committed six years ago with no further offenses since then? I don't really have a problem with renting to that person. A marijuana-related offense many years ago with nothing recent? No real problems UNLESS I get the impression from meeting you that you're still using (I do NOT want police busting down the door and causing property damage to try to arrest you for smoking weed!). But truth be told, if your offense was alcohol-related or related to a harder drug, I would require a lot more information before I rented to you. I would want to know if you had been through rehab, how long had you been sober, etc. I might even ask for a reference from your AA sponsor, your SA counselor, your PO, etc. Again, the issue with drug offenses is one about property damage. I don't want you punching a hole in the wall because you get drunk. I don't want the cops to be tossing smoke grenades through the window because some disgruntled ex-girlfriend tells the cops you're doing cocaine. Cops are NOT gentle on homes where suspected drug-dealers (or even users!) live.

Lifestyle FactorsNow here's where it gets tricky... The key issue here is, "How will this applicant's lifestyle affect whether they're able/willing/responsible enough to take good care of my property?" These are the issues where I would "chat" with the applicant informally and "get to know them". My over-riding concern is whether they seem like they'll take good care of the property. For example, I wouldn't rent to a "car guy" if the property didn't have a garage, because I know that the car guy is likely to do auto repairs in the driveway and/or take greasy engine parts inside (which could cause serious damage to the flooring). I don't think I would EVER rent to a group of young people (male OR female) like college students who are wanting to split a 3BR home (Of course, I would never purchase a 3BR rental property right next to a college because I specifically DON'T want to deal with that!). I also wouldn't rent to a group of two or three single military folks who are wanting to share a place, but I'd never tell them that was the reason - that has nothing to do with the military affiliation and more to do with the fact that I would kind of be expecting them to act more like those college kids than responsible adults. I would rent to a family with young children IF the children came along to do the walkthrough and were relatively well-behaved (and as a mother of many, I think I'm a pretty good judge of what is "normal" kid behavior and what would be destructive); I might ask a higher security deposit from a larger family, though. If the kids don't come to the walkthrough, I'm wanting to know why the kids are such a handful that they were left with a sitter (which is expensive). Again, I would never SAY that was the reason, though. To be honest, I wouldn't rent a large home to an elderly couple if they didn't appear to be in very good health; they would end up costing me an arm and a leg in repairs and maintenance because if they were physically unable to do some of the more basic maintenance tasks (like changing the air filter, relighting a pilot light in a water heater, etc.), they would be calling me constantly.

Bottom Line?How does it affect me and my property? My goal as a landlord is to have the property well-maintained and to have the rent paid. That's it. A gay couple or a lesbian couple is no more likely to trash my house than a heterosexual couple. A black family or a Hispanic family is no less likely to pay the rent on time than a white family. Now a LARGE family may be more likely to do damage to the home than a smaller family, but that can be mitigated with a larger security deposit and making a few minor changes. (For example, I would actually remove miniblinds and tell the tenants that the blinds aren't part of the apartment. My own kids wreak havoc on miniblinds and any time we've ever lived in a rental house, the FIRST thing I do is put all the miniblinds in storage and replace them with my own curtains.) A military family may be more likely to get orders and to relocate, but IMO that's generally offset by the fact that a military FAMILY is less likely to do serious damage to the property (not as much of the "party" lifestyle) and the military paycheck and income is extremely stable, so that's kind of a wash in my book. But again, we get to the bottom line here. I would never refuse to rent to somebody because they had some sort of habit I didn't like UNLESS it was something that might negatively affect my property or my rent payment. I don't care if they want to set up a BDSM dungeon in the spare bedroom! As long as they don't damage the walls or ceilings with their modifications and they don't have loud swinger parties that get the cops called in on a regular basis.

/Sorry for the length//My doctor put me on hydrocodone, which makes me VERY chatty

DrPainMD:Mensan: Thank a veteran of the War of 1812 (that's the last time our national sovereignty was challenged) for protecting your right to be a jerk.Thank a police officer for protecting your dickish self from other scumbags breaking your neck or turning you into a brain-dead cripple.

Let's be reasonable. Exactly what should have been done in response to Pearl Harbor? Apart from that, we had an obligation to our embattled allies, and Axis would certainly have attempted a full-scale invasion on the United States as soon as they felt it possible. (I wonder what would have happened to us had Japan not colossally blundered by making it essentially impossible for us to avoid entering the war proper.)